HGTV Gets It: They're Launching a New Social Networking Site

From ClickZ, one of the best search engine marketing news sites out there, comes the announcment that HGTV is launching a new social networking site called Rate My Room.

Several months ago, I was a part of a conference call with someone I wont name, but he has a fairly popular show on TV that relates to DIY related home improvment. As a part of the conversation, we had a conversation about his target audience, their behaviors, their habits and more importantly, how he could connect with those users on his site. While his site wasn't bad, it had a few videos, it had a lot of great content and he wanted to take his strategy to the next level. I told him about social networking, creating features on his site to submit content, submit videos, vote on projects, add their expertise and even create a wiki of sorts to be a reference. The call went well, but over and over he expressed doubt about letting his viewers participate on his site. He was completely uncomfortable with giving his users that much control over the content. He eventually decided not to go in that direction.

Now, here comes HGTV, they're launching Rate My Room. One of the brilliant things about this move by HGTV is that they have a ready and willing audience who would love nothing more than to interact with each other, giving advice, comparing projects, rating their rooms and household projects. I think it's brilliant. If HGTV adds some expert or celebrity designer interaction within the communities, that could only bring more people to the network.

I truly believe that social media and networking is just one of the ways the internet will change the ways people live, the ways people interact and the ways that marketers and companies communicate with their audience. I really enjoy the fact that the internet has evolved to such a degree that the power of the individual, combined with the voice of their network can influence an industry like marketing, which has for so long, tried to tell the consumer what to do. Marketers have always said that the customer ruled, but only recently have consumers actually felt the power of "ruling".

Pageview is Giving Way to New Metrics and it's About Time

MarketingVox, one of my favorite marketing sites has an excellent article about page-view becoming obsolete as a major metric for site success.

This is an issue I've been very passionate about. While page-views are important for determining part of the overall site metrics, I personally feel that in the new era of social media, social networking, social sites that combine different technologies like Ajax and Flash, it's becoming less and less relevant and important. Steve Rubel's article about page-view is a brilliant description of how other aspects and other metrics are becoming more important.

One of the aspects of the Web 2.0 mindset is to have users interact with the website. As more and more people spend more time online, companies are finding ways to encourage user interaction. Sometimes this happens on a single page, other times it's browsing. With the Web 2.0 mindset, page-view is less descriptive of the behavior of the users.

In the past, we looked at page views as a way to see where people are going on a website, we can see them migrate from the homepage, to the category page to the product page and finally to the checkout and purchase page. This linear model is becoming less and less relevant in socially based sites. YouTube and MySpace rely on people to bounce from profile to profile, video to video and interact with the elements on the page. This creates less of a linear pathway and more of a meandering pathway.

Steve Rubel describes tracking "events" as a more important way to look at analytics and user behavior on a site. He makes an excellent point that page-views and even unique visitors don't account for multiple monitors, multiple windows or in Firefox (I would assume) multiple tabs. As I write this post, I have 9 tabs open.

He makes an excellent point that I completely agree with:

Time Spent

With the rise of online video and other rich media, marketers also rely on time spent to measure attention. This is a good metric and it even holds as people interact with embedded video and widgets on whatever platform they choose.

Unfortunately, time spent fails to capture the most engaged users who like to peruse RSS feeds. For example, I subscribe to multiple RSS feeds from the Wall Street Journal but I only click through on those that I want to dig deeper. Still I spend up to 10 minutes a day with my Journal feeds and over an hour a day overall within my Google RSS reader. That time is not accounted for - at least by the Journal, but certainly by Google. There's the dilemma

His conclusion is that the more we track events and time spent, the more accurate the data is going to be to determine user behavior, site value and overall marketing efforts.

Right now, the industry still values some of the more traditional methods of determining and interpreting metrics, but I agree with Steve Rubel. There's an analytic shift that corresponds with the new way of internet marketing and Web 2.0 that current habits dont fully describe.

CrossEngine: Searching the web from one place

CrossEngine looks like a very interesting tool for hard-core researchers who desire aggregations of information with as little wasted effort as possible. CrossEngine takes a simple query. For this case, I'll use the term "iPhone".

The first thing I notice is that the default search is going to Google, it's appropriate and retrieves the same results as a regular Google search. I can then look at the results in any of the other search engines, traditional, blog or even fine tune my desired results to .pdf or .ppt.

I switch the focus to looking for iPhone images, and it gives me choices from Google Images, Picassa, Flickr and several others.

The concept is sound, it's interesting and while it's been done before by other sites, this one is by far the most comprehensive search aggregator I've seen. The power in CrossEngine is its simplicity of concept and the time saved when doing comprehensive cross platform research and searches.

The critiques I have is that while this may never really catch on with the casual searcher, this is a good tool to any competitive intelligence professional, marketer, interactive marketer (just to list a few) to get good information in a short amount of time. The second thing I like about this site is that it allows people who aren't familiar with some of the lesser known search engines or social media sites, it gives users a chance to experience something that they haven't seen before.

I do however, have a few critiques.

My first exposure to the site was a bit confusing. Take a look at the screenshot below:


I'm a huge fan of usability and design... the layout, the green check mark, the overall look and feel didn't inspire a lot of interest, it didnt guide me where to go or what to do. While I could have clicked the "learn more" link, I'm a firm believer that any site should be intuitive... the user should instinctively know what to do within 8 seconds of landing on the page.

In my humble opinion, it's a powerful and useful service that hides behind a somewhat wonky design.

Now, I know that a lot of people are going to hate the fact that the entire thing is using frames. From my perspective, it seems that this aspect is more of a necessity than anything else. I cant link to any of my searches, I cant show people the results I've found and I found that a little annoying because I do it so often with other engines. When I'm preparing detailed analyses for my clients, I often cite sources. With CrossEngine, that's not really possible unless I go directly to Google or Flickr and repeat the search.

If I were to change anything, it would be that feature... or at least have a button where I could download the source link from CrossEngine.

Overall, I like the idea, I think it has potential and I plan on using it for my next analysis. If I find anything really useful or cool (or annoying), I'll post that later.

Change.org Launches Today - Social Networking for Social Causes

Change.org launched this morning. It's a social network that promotes networking, communication, and non-profit support. This is a great idea that has needed to happen.

Having worked and volunteered for many non-profit organizations, I know that the plight of the fundraiser can be a fairly difficult job. It takes long hours, lots of research and of course, all forms of networking. The stress is high, but when you can see the efforts pay off, it's worth it.

Change.org boasts support for over 1 million non-profits, which is amazing at launch. This will allow people to enter in and immediately find what they're looking for and hopefully instantly connect to people who want to affect the same change in the world.

Here's a screenshot of the homepage:


There's nothing about this site that I dont like, the social issues are listed in a familiar format, the statement asks the user a question... absolutely brilliant.

One of the things I've always heard about the internet is that it has the potential and power to affect positive change... and change.org looks to be on the forefront of applying social change, social networking and all the best aspects of Web 2.0.

Prior to my current job, I worked in Psychological Operations for the US Army. During peacetime, we worked very closely with humanitarian organizations that promoted de-mining efforts in Southeast Asia. One of the more powerful aspects of this site is that people can gather around a similar issue like Banning Land Mines.

It's something that I'm passionate about and it's something that I've done in my life to make it a better place. On Change.org's Ban Land Mine page, users center themselves around an issue, upload videos, upload personal stories and recommend non-profits. For the land mine issue, there's no non-profits recommended, but for the issue of protecting a woman's right to choose, people have recommended Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights. This is a powerful tool for people to talk about an issue, meet like minded people, network with activists and connect with non-profits.

Change.org only takes 1% of the donation to each non-profit. This is an amazing tool for people and non-profits to benefit from social networking technology.

One of my critiques however, is that the issues involved arent that well developed. There are all the hot issues, but a search for "science education" or "evolution" doesnt result in any groups. They ask me if I wanted to start that group, but I would have liked to see some of the more minor issues represented. But honestly, all that is minor because it's the first day of launch and there's going to be gaps in the causes.

I hope they succeed, it's a great idea at the right time.

YouTubers Getting Paid, and a New Monetization Strategy

A little while ago, I wrote about some of the challenges of monetizing video. Undeniably, user generated online video (UGOV) is very popular and there's a lot of discussion about the legality, trademark issues, freedom of speech issues and ownership issues. Yet despite the details of UGOV, it remains a dominant form of media.

After Google acquired YouTube, there's been a lot of speculation to maximize the profitability, market penetration, user interaction and usability of the site. I have no doubt that of any company that would acquire YouTube, Google would probably be one of the few companies that could retain the philosophy of user generated and user focused content.

One of the steps to bring the users into a tempting accountability is the plan to share the profits from YouTube with the Tubers (potatoes?) I mean YouTubers... MarketingVox shares an article that, as Chad Hurley, the co-founder of YouTube says would "reward creativity" as the BBC News reports.

The fact that they didn't have to share the profit with its users most likely added to its success, which is measured in tens of millions of users. Now that they're going to change the monetization and revenue sharing model, it's going to have to split the profits with the uploaders. While the sharing details arent available at the moment, they say that they'll start rolling out the plans in phases over the next few months.

The second thing of interest is that YouTube is planning to roll ads before videos. While the plan for the video ads is to make them as short as possible, around 3 seconds, the details havent exactly been worked out.

Now, I'm not the guy who stands on the corner with a sandwich board that says "the end is near". But there's something about the second plan that bothers me just a little. The appeal of YouTube is that it's truly a user generated community that sometimes gets intruded by overly zealous companies who dont quite get the benefit.

If the balance is short ads for a little payout, then that might be enough. However, I think that there's something happening with YouTube that is chipping away a little bit from it's user focus. I mentioned before that UGOV is a feature and not an industry or a business model in and of itself and I think we're seeing that unfold now.

User Generated Video Popular, Yet Hard to Monetize

eMarketer, one of the best sources for marketing information, research and analysis posted an interesting article the other day about user generated online video (UGOV). They referenced a study from London's Screen Digest that found that user generated online video was responsible for 47% of all the video consumed in the US in 2006. They further predict that by 2010, UGOV will account for 55% (44 billion streams) of video consumption on the net.

Like my prior article about monetizing virtual worlds, companies and marketers are looking at the sheer numbers of eyes on the monitor and they're recognizing that this could become a significant source of revenue and branding for them. eMarketer goes on to recognize that while UGOV is a significant source of traffic and media consumption, it only accounts for 15% of revenue from online video sources.

So what's a company to do? How does one create a stable business and profit around UGOV? One answer is to do what Current TV is doing. One of the ways is to create a cable channel like Current TV. I truly enjoy Current TV. They're edgy, they're smart and they create an addictive program watching experience. I like the fact that in the span of an hour, I can be touched, offended, enlightened, frightened and entertained by their submitted videos. Current TV drives traffic to their site and the site drives users to their TV. I enjoy what they do and I think they do it well.

Another option is to monetize the traffic that comes into the site by putting ads and sponsored links on the site. However, this may backfire on the providers when ads start piling up on the videos they want to watch. iFilm and Atom films do a good job with putting short ads on their content, but as more and more providers emerge, it'll be tougher to insure that the users are getting what they want, without sacrificing their credibility. Lastly, if I can watch the same video without ads, what's my motivation to watch the ads?

There are other ways to monetize the streams and traffic: digital sales, subscriptions and licencing technology. The desire to generate revenue has reached a point, where it's becoming like the multimedia "industry" in the early 90's.

Viddling Around blog has an excellent commentary that ties in Esther Dyson's "blasphemous" but accurate comment that there "Was no Multimedia Industry". She maintained that multimedia was a feature and not an industry. The post goes on to note that we may be following the same path now and treating UGOV as an industry and not a feature for relevant sites.

The eMarketer article goes on to say that in 2006, revenues from UGOV sites reached $200 Million in advertising revenue. They predict that in 2010, that revenue will increase to over $900 Million.

I however, remain skeptical of that prediction. I believe it's based on current trending only and the theory that they're treating UGOV as an industry in and of itself... not a feature. Only time will tell at this point.

I think that UGOV has huge potential for relevant and contextual markets, but the rush to profit from it reminds me of a few other internet revolution bubbles. It's exciting, it's exhilarating, it's cool and it's hot... but I agree with Viddling Blog and Esther Dyson, it's a feature, not an industry.

Some Cliches Become Even Truthier

From Eric Mattson's Marketing Blurb, he writes about an interesting study from Susquehanna about the trends of content. In Eric's article, he mentions that in 2005, content sites accounted for 36% of the users' time. However, in 2006, that trend went upwards to 45%.

The interesting point here is where that trend is going to go, and where it will reach a critical mass. In 2007, will the numbers be somewhere from 55 - 60% or will the trend start to slow down, even out and become more static?

Another interesting aspect of this is how do marketers create content for users? Rather than having marketers jump into the latest fad, they actually need to have a strategy that's a little more in depth than slapping together a blog. Garrett French's blog has an excellent market conversation strategy guide.

Understanding that content sites are increasing in popularity, and putting together a strategy to communicate with your users could absolutely bring in business, but even more valuable... a relationship with the content providers and the company itself.